Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
October 2, 2012
English 102
Chris Brunt
Importance of the Natural Family
Rick Santorums view of the traditional or natural family is the epitome of a
conservative, republican view of marriage. He argues that the natural structure of
family life, which attributes back to the Catholic belief of natural law, peeves liberal
idealists as they support individual rights more so than the reliability of a family
structure. He declares that liberalists view nature [as] too confining, thus the enemy of
freedom. (241) This idea was used to counter-argue liberalistic ideas which have
cheapened the sanction and importance of marriage to a partnership of convenience.
Same-sex marriage is the main tactic used to argue the abandonment of
traditional values as he claims When the state declares two men marrying just as
valuable to society as the union of husband and wife, this is not neutrality, it is radical
social engineering. (243) The incentives behind his arguments are not merely on the
basis of morality or personal beliefs, his concern for the children of these families and
future generations is stated undoubtedly as he declares [Marriage] represents our best
attempt to see that every child receives his or her birthright: the right to know and be
known by, to love and be loved by, his or her own mother and father. (242) The concept
of marriage is and should constitute of both a mother and father figure with the purpose
of raising a child in a positive healthy environment.
Making this unisexual sanctification a legal bond will indeed have negative
reparations is clearly insinuated by Santorums argument that [Gay marriage] commits
the government to the position that family structure does not matter; that children dont
need fathers (or mothers for that matter), just abstract individual caregivers, (243) This
is a supplementary tactic Santorum uses to argue the detriment gay marriage protrudes
on adolescent ideas of family life. These three tactics: preserving the sanction of
traditional or natural marriage, the importance of raising a child in a positive
environment, and the installation of positive messages of marital statuses to future
generations are used extensively by Santorum as he argues against this
disambiguation.
When I was in grade school, I can recall one of my fellow students who was
raised by a same-sex couple: her aunt, and for lack of a better title, second aunt.
Because the entire student body had knowledge of her untraditional family structure,
she suffered with malign slander and antagonistic humiliation by her fellow classmates.
The distinct memory of the suffering this young girl endured due to the unconventional
way of life lived by her care-givers validate why Santorums numerous claims. It is one
(244) If we were to consent as a country that the union of same sex individuals as equal
to the sanction of man and wife, the principles behind the sacred bond of marriage will
forever be altered. Children will be taught in public schools that legal, sexual unions that
involve unisexual couples is the norm because laws have meaning and therefor laws
teach. When something is legal it has the presumption that it is moral and right. (244)
Additionally, people who believe children need mothers and fathers will be treated in
public square like racists. (243) Not only will the adolescents of our future believe that
gay marriage is morally justifiable, the followers of the traditional model of marriage will
be oppressed for their opposing views.
Santorums claims that liberalist are free to do whatever they want..[yet] there is
one thing that [liberalists believe] that individuals cannot do if they are to remain
autonomous: they cannot commit themselves permanently to another human being
(243-244) Santorums example of the liberals marriage paradox (243) explains why
liberalistic views and opinions are illogical. If the liberal places exceptional significance
on the individual, why fight for the unification of two beings? The result behind the
liberalists view of marriage is an idea of freedom; freedom to love, freedom to live
openly with one another, and achingly freedom to eradicate the relationship whenever
one chooses. The idea behind free love is insulting to the significance of marital vows
and devout promises that traditional marriage provides.